BJP seeks removal of AAP hoardings, posters from govt properties in Delhi
The Delhi unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sought the removal of hoardings, fixtures and posters bearing former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's face citing it has been nearly three months since the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ceded power in the Capital and that the continued display of its leaders' faces at government property must cease.
In a letter addressed to the state transport and health minister, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Delhi BJP chief spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor said that those looking after the publicity work should be directed to immediately remove such photos and banners.
'Today, it has come to my notice that posters of Kejriwal and Sisodia [Manish Sisodia] welcome the visitors to the RTO Office in Mayur Vihar. Similarly, Kejriwal is also seen on many Mohalla Clinic cabins. If this scene is in Mayur Vihar RTO Office, then it can happen in other places too,' Kapoor wrote along with the picture of the office.
HT reached out to Singh as well as the AAP but did not receive a response immediately.
To be sure, it is standard procedure for the new government to replace the images and icons used by the losing party in official communications and government properties after change in power. Such pictures and images are also covered by authorities during the Model Code of Conduct ahead of all elections.
A senior official said that when the MCC is in effect, signage and boards with political names and images are either covered with paper or painted over.
'In most cases, the losing side's images are not restored but the infrastructure with permanent material, like walls, may require more phased intervention. In such cases, the new signboards or wall surface would be changed by the Public Works Department on project-to-project basis. Usually, the new MLAs take care of such things,' the official said, asking not to be named.
Kapoor said that the images of the former chief minister and other AAP leaders can be seen across the city. 'So many structures and cabins of mohalla clinics still have images of Kejriwal. All such premises should be checked and these images should be taken down. It has almost been three months since they lost the power in Delhi,' Kapoor said.
'It is requested that the officials looking after the publicity work in both transport and health departments should be asked to immediately remove the photo banners, etc of the last government from government premises,' the letter added.
In February, the BJP swept the Delhi assembly elections after a gap of 26 years. The party contested 68 of the 70 seats and won 48, while the AAP only won 22 from the 62 seats it previously held. Prominent leaders, including Kejriwal and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, lost in their constituencies, while Atishi managed to win the Kalkaji seat.
During the campaign ahead of the polls, the BJP repeatedly brought up the issue of publicity and criticised the AAP over its expenditures diverted to promotions and advertising.
Last year, posters of Kejriwal alongside then transport minister Kailash Gahlot were prominently displayed on Delhi's public transport buses and at depots. Kejriwal stepped down as chief minister on September 17, 2024. Two weeks later, the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) directed the removal of these posters from its buses and depots.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
38 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Bengaluru Stampede: CM defends suspension of police commissioner, officers
Defending the suspension of Bengaluru police commissioner B Dayananda and other police officials for the stampede outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium that killed 11 people, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Friday said, prima facie those who have not fulfilled their responsibility properly have been suspended. While speaking to reporters, he accused BJP and JD(S) of doing politics on the issue. Responding to a question on BJP and JD(S) demanding his and Deputy CM D K Shivakumar's resignation and accusing them of making police officials a "scapegoat," Siddaramaiah said, "They are speaking for the sake of politics. I don't want to do politics in this matter. Prima facie those responsible, who have not fulfilled their responsibility properly have been suspended, " The Chief Minister on Thursday had announced the decision to immediately suspend the Circle Police Inspector of the Cubbon Park Police station A K Girish and Assistant Commissioner of Police C Balakrishna, Deputy Commissioner of Police of central division Shekhar H Tekkannavar, Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash, who is in charge of the stadium, and Commissioner of Police Bengaluru city Dayananda. The suspension order said, "It is found that there has been on the face of it substantial dereliction of duty by these officers." The stampede occurred on Wednesday evening in front of the stadium, where a large number of people thronged to participate in the RCB team's IPL victory celebrations. Eleven people have died and 56 were injured in the incident. According to the suspension order, the CEO of RCB had intimated Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City on June 3 about holding the victory parade and celebrations on June 4, however, the office of Police Commissioner failed to give written reply to the organisers, rejecting the permission on the grounds of lack of time to prepare for such a huge event. It said, the RCB and the Cricket Association went ahead to tweet about the celebrations and inviting the fans to Chinnaswamy stadium without going through the usual practice of issuing tickets or passes, and despite the knowledge of these developments and expectation of huge turnout of cricket fans by the Police, steps were not taken to either have the event organised systematically at the stadium or give adequate information to the public to take necessary precautions for their safety or provide additional Police force for appropriate crowd management. Further, the situation was not discussed with the higher ups for taking necessary guidance and advice in the matter. As a result, the situation went out of control and brought a lot of misery, loss of precious lives and embarrassment to the Government, it added. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
From 2014 to 2025: How Modi redefined India's political and economic landscape
From policies that further prosperity to driving the economy to reach the fourth spot in the world, PM Modi has worked to make a name for India on the global stage through his ideas and actions in the past 11 years read more Prime Minister Narendra Modi will complete 11 years in office on June 9. The National Democratic Alliance's decade-long governance under PM Modi's vision has been marked by development in both the political and economic landscape. From policies that further prosperity to driving the economy to reach the fourth spot in the world, PM Modi has worked to make a name for India on the global stage through his ideas and actions in the past 11 years. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here's a look at how this change came to effect: New building for Parliament India has come a long way since the British left in 1947. However, their vestiges remain in the form of buildings and architecture across the country. For 73 years, lawmakers had to draft blueprints of India's development in a British-made structure, that is, the old Parliament. Prime Minister Narendra Modi carries the 'Sengol' in a procession before installing it in the Lok Sabha chamber at the inauguration of the new Parliament building, in New Delhi, Sunday, May 28, 2023. PTI Under PM Modi, the central government changed this. In 2023, the prime minister inaugurated the new Parliament House of India, which now serves as a pillar of the country's heritage. The inauguration ceremony included traditional rituals such as a havan and the installation of the Sengol, a sacred sceptre, behind the Speaker's chair in the Lok Sabha chamber. Rise of BJP at the Centre and in states PM Modi did not just help the Bharatiya Janata Party dominate the centre, but also paved the way for the party to expand its footprint across India. The BJP, along with its ally parties, are now ruling 19 states and two union territories. The latest victory came during the Delhi Assembly Elections in February when the party dethroned the Aam Aadmi Party's rule to make a comeback in the national capital. Party workers and supporters celebrating BJP's success in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh state assembly elections outside the BJP headquarter, in New Delhi on Monday. PTI This expansion of NDA governance marks a historic milestone, with the alliance now overseeing a population of approximately 920 million people, solidifying its dominance in India's political landscape. End of the Congress-led political power In 2014, a new age of politics was heralded in India. PM Modi's BJP ended the Indian National Congress's 10 years of rule under former prime minister Manmohan Singh. The Grand Old Party has ever since been the largest Opposition in India. BJP has now emerged as India's dominant political force, securing consecutive majorities in the 2014, 2019 and 2024 general elections. This period marked a shift from a multi-party system to a more centralised political landscape, with the BJP consolidating support among various social groups, including rural voters, women, and marginalised communities. In fact, PM Modi is the first prime minister after Jawaharlal Nehru to have won three consecutive parliamentary elections. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD End of Article 370 In 2019, the central government took the bold step of abrogating Article 370 that gave Jammu and Kashmir its special status and split the region into two Union Territories – J&K and Ladakh. Supporters wave BJP's flags at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's helicopter, during a public meeting ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections, at Kartar Nagar in New Delhi. PTI The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 significantly transformed Jammu and Kashmir by integrating it fully into India's constitutional framework. This move enabled the application of central laws, such as the Right to Education and land acquisition compensation statutes, which were previously inapplicable. One nation, one tax PM Modi revolutionised India's taxation system by introducing 'One Nation, One Tax' that established the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which was implemented on July 1, 2017. This landmark reform unified the country's complex tax structure by subsuming various central and state taxes into a single tax, aiming to simplify the taxation process and promote economic integration. The GST was officially launched at midnight on June 30, 2017, with a special session held in the Central Hall of Parliament. Finance Bill of 2017 In 0217, the central government under the BJP unveiled the Finance Bill, which is seen as a significant legislative measure introduced in India to implement the financial proposals of the administration. It encompassed over 40 amendments across various laws, aiming to enhance transparency, curb black money, and streamline governance. Key provisions included making Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns and obtaining a Permanent Account Number (PAN), imposing a cap of Rs 2 lakh on cash transactions to discourage unaccounted money, and removing caps on corporate donations to political parties while mandating anonymous contributions through electoral bonds. The bill also helped to restructure several tribunals, granting the central government greater control over their functioning.
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
The Opposition's Silence Has Let the BJP Diminish India's Political Discourse
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Politics The Opposition's Silence Has Let the BJP Diminish India's Political Discourse Sarayu Pani 38 minutes ago Today, the opposition faces a choice – they can either continue to allow the boundaries of political engagement in the country to be decided by the ruling party or they can ground their opposition in democratic principles. A multi-party delegation of India led by NCP-SP MP Supriya Sule. Photo: PTI Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now The rhetoric being employed by the multi-party delegations sent by India to other countries – ostensibly to shape the global narrative around Operation Sindoor – is puzzling. Far from offering any fresh geopolitical perspectives, opposition members of these delegations have limited themselves to enthusiastically endorsing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government's foreign policy on Pakistan. While it is unclear as to why a foreign audience is expected to find the same arguments more compelling when endorsed by members of Indian opposition, this endorsement has been portrayed as a matter of national duty. Two weeks in, it would appear that far from influencing international opinion, this outreach has barely been noticed. Certainly, there have been no groundbreaking shifts in the way in which Pakistan is viewed globally. They have, in this period, secured further funding from the ADB and also been appointed to chair the UNSC's Taliban Sanctions Committee as well as sit as the vice-chair of the UNSC counter-terrorism committee. The political compulsion felt by the opposition to perform in this seemingly fruitless public charade is interesting. It is unlikely that seasoned politicians in the opposition could not foresee this outcome. Their participation was therefore likely driven by what they imagine their own voters expect of them. These expectations are the product of a domestic public discourse where foreign policy has increasingly been taken out of the realm of political contestation and elevated to the realm of security, where the act of criticism is in itself seen as 'anti-national'. Securitisation in international relations refers to a practice whereby issues are presented as existential threats, taking them beyond the realm of ordinary politics. The securitisation of an issue generally requires it to be framed as an existential threat to what is called a referent object, and for the audience to accept it as such. Once the audience accepts an issue to be an existential threat, it legitimises the breaking of previously accepted rules (whether international or domestic) to guard the referent object. This referent object can be a population, or even a broader principle or idea. The American 'war on terror' for example was framed as combatting a global existential threat and that was used to deviate from both established international legal principles – including on the use of force, criminal jurisdiction and the treatment of prisoners – and to curb individual rights within countries in the West (including through the mass surveillance infrastructure created pursuant to the PATRIOT Act). The securitisation discourse is not limited to international issues. Globally, the immigration discourse serves as perhaps the most tragic example of the securitisation of a domestic concern. Some of the most vulnerable and persecuted people in the world – asylum seekers – are repeatedly framed as existential threats to an imagined 'western' way of life generating cross party consent for their violent removal, often through means of questionable legality. In India, similar rhetoric has been targeted at 'illegal' immigrants from Bangladesh and against Rohingya refugees, and has been widely employed by the government as well as by several opposition parties. This has contributed to the legitimisation of practices like Assam 'pushing' people made stateless by the draconian NRC over the border into Bangladesh. There have also been extremely serious allegations raised with respect to Rohingya refugees being pushed off navy vessels with life jackets in the sea near Myanmar. Tellingly, the Indian Supreme Court refused to expedite the hearings on the matter stating the 'nation is going through difficult times'– a classic case of a security framing being used to dismiss serious human rights concerns. Theorists generally agree on two things with respect to securitisation. First, securitisation does not automatically follow from a grave threat. It is a language act where rhetoric is used deliberately to create this perception of an existential threat. For example, not all wars or terrorist attacks, become removed from the political discourse. In 1962, during the war with China, Francine Frankel points out that Nehru was severely criticised both by capitalists who insisted that the state should have focused on defence and left heavy industry under private control, and others who blamed defence minister V.K. Menon's perceived communist leanings, and Nehru himself, for what they saw as the failure of non-alignment and the collapse of the Panchsheel agreement. Similarly, the 26/11 terrorist attacks, and the UPA government's handling of it were subjected to near continuous scrutiny and political debate. Second, an issue being framed by the state as an existential threat does not by itself elevate it to the status of a security issue – for an issue to become securitised, this framing must be broadly accepted by the audience. This is where the absence of the opposition in recent years in India has really been felt. The securitisation of political issues has been a defining feature of the BJP years in India. Domestically, this has been accomplished by invoking anti-terror statutes against members of civil society, student leaders and to punish minorities for communal violence. A vast majority of these instances have not been rhetorically resisted by the political opposition to the BJP. In 2019, for example, the Congress voted in favour of amendments that dangerously broadened the scope of the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the Rajya Sabha. Few opposition political parties have stood in clear solidarity with the detainees of either the Bhima Koregaon case or the Delhi riots conspiracy case. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of this relentless push towards the securitisation of political issues have been the Indian television news and entertainment media. The framing of every issue as an existential threat, especially to the majority Hindu population, has been profitable for them. Popular news channels have seen massive spikes in TRPs around such framings. Films like Kashmir Files and Kerela Story that have been used to create the perception that the Hindus in India are under serious threat have also done extremely well at the box office. This means that in addition to any state imperative to avoid scrutiny by turning political issues into security issues, there is also a strong commercial imperative to keep the audience in this perpetual state of existential anxiety. Once an audience is brought to this state of existential anxiety, it is very difficult to reverse. This traps both the audience and the government into a framework where the only acceptable solution to any problem is increasing militiarisation in the sphere of foreign policy and the rolling back of rights domestically. It is telling that the Congress' only consistent criticism of Operation Sindoor today is that a ceasefire was agreed upon too easily. Their criticism of the BJP government's handling of border disputes with China also revolves around the same theme. Without going into the merits of either position, it is important to note that this is because the only criticism possible of a government in front of an audience under the sway of a securitizing discourse is that they didn't go far enough or act aggressively enough. This discourse becomes a particular handicap in situations where increased military force cannot deliver the desired outcome. If, as Joseph Nye puts it, power is the ability to change the behaviour of states, then a situation where one state is compelled by domestic public opinion to use military force against another, even as such displays of force do not change the behavior sought to be changed, is not an effective demonstration of power. On the contrary, a public discourse that prevents the government from introspecting on its strategies, returning to the drawing board, or exploring alternative pathways, including diplomacy, arguably reduces its power. Theorists generally agree that in any democratic society, national security must never be idealised. And while some issues will need to be securitised from time to time, desecuritisation must always be the long-term goal – to move issues out of this threat defence sequence and into the ordinary public sphere. For the last decade or so, the Indian opposition has preferred to allow the ruling party to set the boundaries of what issues can be debated politically and what issues are elevated to the realm of security. Given the hold the BJP has on the media and consequently, the public imagination, perhaps they believed that to do otherwise would be electorally harmful. It is important to remember that securitisation is not an innocent reflection of an issue being a security threat. To securitise, or to accept a securitisation framing is always a political choice. And this isn't a political choice that requires political power to exercise. It is a battle fought in the realm of rhetoric. And by refusing to challenge any of the state's securitization framings over the last decade, in domestic policy, as well as in foreign affairs, the opposition has contributed to the shrinking of the political discourse in India. Today, the opposition faces a choice – they can either continue to allow the boundaries of political engagement in the country to be decided by the ruling party or they can ground their opposition in democratic principles, and challenge the boundaries themselves, when required. But they would do well to note that to continue along the former path is to contribute to their own growing irrelevance. Sarayu Pani is a lawyer by training and posts on X @sarayupani. Missing Link is her column on the social aspects of the events that move India. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News The Opposition Owes the Indian public Some Answers 16 Opposition Parties Demand Special Parliament Session in Joint Letter to Prime Minister Rijiju Jumps to Defend Tharoor as MP Faces Congress Ire Over 'LoC Never Breached' Remark INDIA Bloc Pushes for Special Session of Parliament on Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor We Disagree With Modi Govt But Will Cooperate As Its Delegates Abroad: John Brittas, Asad Owaisi Five Questions That Indian MPs May Have to Face Abroad 'Parliament Kept in Dark': How Modi Govt's Multi-Party Global Outreach Differs from The Past India Needs Sustained and Credible Outreach on Terrorism What Could Be Shashi Tharoor's Political Endgame? About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
